Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 126.96.36.199
Forum Moderators: goodroi
Internet search leader Google Inc. on Friday began hosting material produced by The Associated Press and three other news services on its own Web site instead of only sending readers to other destinations.
[edited by: tedster at 5:12 am (utc) on Oct. 5, 2007]
[edit reason] substitute a new link to the story [/edit]
Definitely feels like a win for Google as opposed to news websites.
Oh, and let me be the first to note: No Google ads. Ha. (Contextual ads don't work on the news. This proves it!)
[edited by: tedster at 5:15 am (utc) on Oct. 5, 2007]
[edited by: goodroi at 12:19 pm (utc) on Oct. 5, 2007]
[edit reason] removed broken link [/edit]
(Contextual ads don't work on the news. This proves it!)
I would imagine if Google are now becoming a publisher of news that it will mean less traffic to other sites, especially those using the same agencies, which most do for breaking news. PLus if they weight their own agency stories higher than everyone else...
I note one newspaper says that people go to their original local stories from G News, I don't buy that. Google News does not list very local stories generally. They might gt traffic to those from bigger stories linked on G news but not direct.
I am sure glad we write nearly all our own entertainment news. It is trickier with breaking international news though bar analysis etc, in fact this will encourage rewrites of agency stories ad nauseum. Even local papers use agencies for lcoal coerage of big events, especially as money moves out of print and online circulation figures do not generate same income print ones do.
Although duplicate stories are a pain they do result in people them finding other stories on said publications. Just the current system spreads it about. It will be interesting to see how many publishers start cancelling contracts or demanding reducitons in fees from agencies supplying Google, I know I would as worth less now.
I suppose smart - build up traffic by being an aggregator (many aggregated sites promote G News) then try and supplant those you aggregate buy becoming a publisher yourself. Bit like some agencies who have the cheek to publish and try and sell news to other sites - I try and avoid those agencies. Cake and eat it?
Still if they do start to publish more and more themselves and rate those stories high in the order (news knife etc track this sort of thing) then someone else will have an opening for a new clutter-free non-publishing aggregator. A resourceful person might build a nice simple aggregator and contact all the Google News source sites ask them to join and initially promote, promise no publishing...I might buy that idea. Especially if G News traffic is set to fall...circa 20% of our traffic and I imagine many other online newspapers.
But they shoudl make up their mind if Google News to become another online newspaper as opposed to an aggregator. I don't think publishers will buy it both ways.
As for contextual ads, our world news section has an ecpm higher than about 50% of our other secttions and similar ctr...no real problems with context.
Interesting times in online news for sure.
[edited by: FattyB at 10:49 am (utc) on Sep. 1, 2007]
I wonder if that's a coincidence?
Oh sorry, I'm wrong. CNN is no longer carrying Reuters. Similar but different.
[edited by: amznVibe at 12:23 pm (utc) on Sep. 1, 2007]
I note one newspaper says that people go to their original local stories from G News, I don't buy that. Google News does not list very local stories generally.
i take that to mean that people use news.google.com as their search engine for local news which seems quite logical since many people use google to search for everything else.
i just tried it with a current local news item and got exactly 4 hits:
- a corporate press release on a financial news publishing site
- the home town am station web site
- the 2 "local papers" web sites
nothing in the "nearest big city paper" or national news outlets.
pretty much what i expected...
This will have an impact on traffic to certain sites though in a big way. Looking this morning I see in World news that 9 of the 20 top headlines are Google hosted. A headline for a few hours in US version is worth maybe 5-20K unique on a weekday afternoon. If you were getting 4 of those a day from you agency stories then that could easily run into a million users over a month.
Personally we will benefit from this short-term as don't use any of the 4 agencies mentioned so our stories will no doubt front-page more often. Long-term I am not sure, google are said to soon include comments and other features news sites do. So could end up as just another competitor for readership.
[edited by: FattyB at 1:30 pm (utc) on Sep. 1, 2007]
So, we will see.
The reports here that contextual ads are working on some news pages is interesting to me. My experience is on local news in small to medium-sized markets.
I'm sorry, my hearts not with Google. I'm already jaded by other tactics Google has used, including forcing all webmasters to assimilate their sites into "Google determined relevancy". I like funny pepsi commercials with my superbowl games even if pepsi isn't relevant to footbal ya know? All eyes are watching you big G, prove us doubters wrong please.
That reduces income to the agency and just creates more crap for readers to wade through. In fact rewrites are worse than duplicates as they will not be updated with corrections as fast as original wire, if at all and more mistakes in rewriting. Plus if you use an agency you can be fairly confident of accuracy and build some original opinion pieces etc off the back of them.
Instead of saying paying $5000 a month to AP for a few feeds, just hire a couple of part-time writers to do their own version based on the various agency reports. Hell you could even syndicate it then and not have a time limit on keeping it online. Problem is agencies are cheap since economy of scale, hiring writers is not so morelikely you take them off above mentioned analysis/opinion etc and get them doing rewrites.
That is what I would do anyway. In fact a few Google News source sites do just that, rewrite AP/etc. You can often copy and paste sentences and get a match. Also many of them do not license photos, just use them...usually can tell when no copyright or credit caption. This is another way agencies could lose out as they often bundle photos with their wires for a price.
So unless Google is paying them a small fortune I cannot see how this is a good things for the agencies. I guess it depends just how much traffic sites impacted actually get from G News.
Still it could be good news for out-of work journalists and I hope a kick in the teeth to the agencies who flaunt their position (if they do see a drop in renewals). Running sites to compete with their own customers, delaying when customers get feeds so they enter aggregators etc first.
[edited by: FattyB at 5:28 pm (utc) on Sep. 3, 2007]